bot_list_chatsLists chats a Bale bot has participated in, newest first, with unread counts and last messages, to help find chat IDs.
List the chats this bot has talked in, newest first, with unread count and last message. Use to find chat ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max chats. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / properties / limit / defaultPrevious value: -50New value: +20Input schema / properties / limit / titleRemoved value: -"Limit"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"bot_list_chatsArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "bot_list_chatsDictOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing sort order ('newest first') and the payload shape (unread count, last message). It says nothing about pagination or rate limits, keeping it out of 5 territory.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed immediately by the practical purpose. Nothing is redundant or padded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields and ordering so an agent knows what comes back. The only gap is ordering/pagination nuance around the limit parameter, which is minor for a simple listing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'limit' including its 1-500 range and default. The description adds no format or behavior detail for that parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (chats this bot has talked in), and names the returned fields (unread count, last message), which separates it from bot_get_chat and bot_search_messages. It never explicitly contrasts itself with a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Gives one concrete use case ('Use to find chat ids'), which implies when the tool is useful, but offers no exclusions and does not point to bot_get_chat or bot_search_messages as alternatives for narrower lookups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.